8 ms·
Because government can cheaply seize their assets from their bank accounts without much hassle. When 90% of wealth is owned outside of the banks, you'd need to
by oleganza 13y ago
Because government can cheaply seize their assets from their bank accounts without much hassle. When 90% of wealth is owned outside of the banks, you'd need to go door to door without clear idea how much you can possibly extract. After every successful seizure people only get smarter and protect their wealth even tougher.
- rainsford 13y agoCheap enforcement isn't necessary because the government can create enough disincentive that most people will simply pay the tax. The whole point of the lack of anonymity in Bitcoin is that the government CAN have an idea of how much money you owe in taxes and they can simply throw you in jail (or take your house, car, etc) until you pay. Yes, that's pretty expensive for the government, but they don't have to do it to everyone. Faced with those consequences, most people would just pay.
- pessimizer 13y agoYou don't have to extract a dime. Shoot people who fail to pay whatever you estimate they should, even if they would have had to borrow or steal in order to make the payment - inability to pay would be no excuse. Make sure the payment is a reasonable, manageable amount if someone, for example, consents to being monitored, or opens their books to whatever extent the "attacker" would like. If they don't consent, greatly overestimate their income, maybe even as a statutory default assumption of income. You wouldn't have to shoot very many people at all to maintain whatever amount of control you wanted over other people's lives.